Savannah rejects a project because it uses GPL

MJ Ray mjr at
Fri Feb 10 16:05:20 UTC 2006

"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <ams at>

> >
> Have you actually read that?  There are no requirements that
> documentation must be licensed under the GFDL.

"For documentation, we are currently clarifying exactly what
licenses we accept" and the recent edits to that FAQ are evidence
that it is changing, which is what you asked for (although you
cut your "please back that up" demand).

The driconf exchange was the evidence that it is now required
that documentation must be licensed under the FDL. (Please don't
use GFDL: you don't write GGPL.)

> >  Sebastian Wieseler seems the keenest [...]
> Now you are trying to blame this on one person, [...]

No, you asked whether I'd considered that it could be someone's
mistake. I don't believe it was, but that's who's it could be.

Stop flaming me for answering your questions!

> Sebastian is a nice person, [...]

I don't know him, but I expect he does a lot of good things
and I don't dispute your claim he's "a nice person". This is
not a personal attack on him, but contesting his actions:
rejecting GPL'd projects from Savannah seems wrong.

> Instead of making baseless accusations, how about going directly to
> the source and see what actually happened in a _poilite_ fashion?

Sadly, this isn't baseless: Savannah rejected a project because
it used the GPL, rather than a GPL-incompatible licence.

Sure, seeking advice in public before painting a huge f-off
target on my back is so impolite(!) Glad you finally offered
some instead of making baseless dismissals and non-attributions.

MJ Ray - personal email, see
Work:  Jabber/SIP ask

More information about the Discussion mailing list